No u. Calling people revisionists/idealists/wreckers is not a substitute for intelligent discourse.
Such an insurgency would not be a single event that plays out like an conflict in RISK. It would be continuous and it would cripple the DPRK even further than it had already been crippled. The US would do whatever it needed to to keep recruiting insurgents and keep the DPRK in a state of chaos until the government collapsed.
The stability of the state is dependent on military power being able to crush opposition. This function is not reduced by having an armed population unless the true nature of the state is such that the population is actually opposed to it. If the general population is genuinely supportive of the state, arming them will only increase the power of the military, and therefore the state itself.
You can see this in practice in the USA. Any leftist movement will get crushed not just by the state, but by armed chuds who are opposed to them. Similarly, any counterrevolutionary movement in NK will have to face both the state and armed civilians loyal to the state.
(i) The DPRK wasnt exploitative itself
(ii) The DPRK is perfect and there is no valid internal dissent that would ever arise
The state has no incentive to not just crush dissent since the population is unarmed. NK statistics clearly show their economic growth is stagnating, and they living standards are quite poor. Even Kim Jong Un admits their five year plan failed.
And anyone who actually read Marx would point out that exploitation is not absent from NK, because of the presence of commodity production, inflation, hidden and regressive taxation etc. Unless people in NK are somehow innocent lambs that must never be corrupted, there is also no reason to have restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, restrictions on internet etc.
North Korea is not even good at developing productive forces, so what's the point? They are being outclassed by Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos etc. Clearly the DPRK is doing a terrible job, and unfortunately any dissent is impossible.
A proletarian state is supposed to be oppressive against the bourgeiosie, not against the proletariat. So such a thing surely not self-evident or "goes without saying". Furthermore, exploitation is not a necessary condition of states, it is literally the first things that a proletarian dictatorship should abolish.
The whole point of socialism is that workers must earn the product of their labor. This is not achieved when you have non-objective prices, inflation, regressive taxation, and straight up corruption. You can't pretend that "oh this is all self-evident or this is all necessary to protect the people". I notice defenders of AES state always ignore the obvious exploitation that goes on in these states or pretend as if its not important.
Internet restriction is a dumb thing. It is practically non-existent is China as anyone can use a VPN, and Cuba is too poor to be able to provide free access to the internet anyway. The correctness of a measure is not "China and Cuba do it too so its good".
From a cursory wikipedia overview of the economy and politics, I see that the latest trend is in liberalization of politics in terms of increased cultural exchanges and foreign consumption. Apparently they are changing their industrial and agricultural policies towards liberalization too. If they liberalize and become something like China or Vietnam, that would make the decades of Juche quite pointless
No u. Calling people revisionists/idealists/wreckers is not a substitute for intelligent discourse.
The stability of the state is dependent on military power being able to crush opposition. This function is not reduced by having an armed population unless the true nature of the state is such that the population is actually opposed to it. If the general population is genuinely supportive of the state, arming them will only increase the power of the military, and therefore the state itself.
You can see this in practice in the USA. Any leftist movement will get crushed not just by the state, but by armed chuds who are opposed to them. Similarly, any counterrevolutionary movement in NK will have to face both the state and armed civilians loyal to the state.
deleted by creator
Your argument would be true if
(i) The DPRK wasnt exploitative itself (ii) The DPRK is perfect and there is no valid internal dissent that would ever arise
The state has no incentive to not just crush dissent since the population is unarmed. NK statistics clearly show their economic growth is stagnating, and they living standards are quite poor. Even Kim Jong Un admits their five year plan failed.
And anyone who actually read Marx would point out that exploitation is not absent from NK, because of the presence of commodity production, inflation, hidden and regressive taxation etc. Unless people in NK are somehow innocent lambs that must never be corrupted, there is also no reason to have restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, restrictions on internet etc.
North Korea is not even good at developing productive forces, so what's the point? They are being outclassed by Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos etc. Clearly the DPRK is doing a terrible job, and unfortunately any dissent is impossible.
Sorry for not participating in Juche worship
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
A proletarian state is supposed to be oppressive against the bourgeiosie, not against the proletariat. So such a thing surely not self-evident or "goes without saying". Furthermore, exploitation is not a necessary condition of states, it is literally the first things that a proletarian dictatorship should abolish.
The whole point of socialism is that workers must earn the product of their labor. This is not achieved when you have non-objective prices, inflation, regressive taxation, and straight up corruption. You can't pretend that "oh this is all self-evident or this is all necessary to protect the people". I notice defenders of AES state always ignore the obvious exploitation that goes on in these states or pretend as if its not important.
Internet restriction is a dumb thing. It is practically non-existent is China as anyone can use a VPN, and Cuba is too poor to be able to provide free access to the internet anyway. The correctness of a measure is not "China and Cuba do it too so its good".
From a cursory wikipedia overview of the economy and politics, I see that the latest trend is in liberalization of politics in terms of increased cultural exchanges and foreign consumption. Apparently they are changing their industrial and agricultural policies towards liberalization too. If they liberalize and become something like China or Vietnam, that would make the decades of Juche quite pointless